George Sarant

17 February 2015

A goofy State Department spokeswoman said that we need to address the “underlying causes” that have created ISIS. It seems these causes consist poverty and lack of jobs. But poverty and a need for work characterizes not ISIS, but those poor Egyptian Coptic Christians they beheaded. It is really troubling when the administration is so clueless about not just Islamic radicalism, but extremism in general, which is of course the way it insists on seeing the problem. The problem with the analysis put forward is that it is completely wrong.

Radical extremists virtually never come from the poor. The poor are too concerned with day to day survival and have little connection with causes of any kind. There are plenty of radicals claiming to represent the poor throughout history, such as the communists. But neither Lenin nor Stalin came from an impoverished background. Bin Laden was very wealthy, and his successor is an Egyptian medical doctor. There is virtually no example of a poor radical extremist throughout history. It may be too much to have expect them to have done any actual research on the problem, based even on their own understanding of it.

If they really believe the nonsense they have expressed then it would presumably require some sort of antipoverty program to address the problem. But even the Islamic extremists themselves don’t say anything about poverty. It is all about faith, rectitude, religious order, killing infidels, displacing the Crusaders, etc. ISIS wants a caliphate, not a Marshal Plan.

What about those western converts flocking to ISIS? They are concerned with piety, not poverty. They become alienated from the society they live in, and seek some alternative that will provide purpose, and in a strange way, fulfillment. They are the kind of people who, in a previous generation would have gravitated towards the revolutionary left. They are attracted to the Other; that which constitutes the principal opposition to existing society. From France they are seeking the nonFrance, from America the nonAmerica, etc. This also applies the existing order in many Muslim countries, which fail to conform to their idea of how society ought to be organized, but again with no mention of poverty.

Thus it is foolish and dangerous to try and base policies upon these misconceptions. Given that these are people who have crucified children, buried them alive, beheaded many others or burned them to death, talking about a jobs program is preposterous. If this is the kind of thinking going on these days we are in real trouble. For ISIS is already has a poverty program. It consists of beheading the poor. Unless we act many more innocent people will die, and die horribly. They cannot be persuaded, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot even be scared. There is only one solution: ISIS must be destroyed.

08 February 2015

There has been an explosion of outrage since Barack Obama made an ill-advised and historically inaccurate statement that appeared to equate ISIS with Christianity. This has resuscitated the notion that he is a closet Muslim. He isn’t. He is a secular-rationalist man of the Left, and views the world through that prism. There is no doubt that he is sympathizes with Islam, but not in a way that most Muslims would be comfortable with. He simply expresses the incongruous attitude of many on the radical left who believe that since we are bad, our enemies must either be good or have legitimate grievances due to our misconduct. In this view, we have history of racism and discrimination, and our view of Islam is thus informed by prejudice which must be resisted lest we do bad things to this oppressed minority. Whenever we are attacked they worry not about what we have suffered, but rather that we might react and persecute only confirms what deep contempt they have for the American people. What is truly astonishing is that we have a president of the United States who never misses an opportunity to belittle his own country wherever he is in the world.

But it is not just the US, but now christendom that must be admonished. We must get off of our “high horse” regarding radical Islam because after all Christianity has been guilty of many sins as well. The audacity expressing this equivalency is breathtaking, and not just flat out wrong but preposterous. Unless your hatred for western civilization is implacable, it ought to be obvious that there are no Christians anywhere in today’s world committing atrocities in any way comparable to ISIS. Then they will tell you that Christians did much the same to Muslims in the past, notably during the Crusades. Even if that were true how many centuries back are we going to reach?

But it’s not even true. Historically most of the atrocities committed by Christians were perpetrated on other Christians, as in the 17th century when Europe was torn apart by religious warfare. Heretics were considered to be in league with the devil and were treated accordingly and in a most unChristian way. The nonchristians who were persecuted for centuries were not Muslims but Jews. As for those fabled Crusades, for the most part they were attempting to recover territory that previously was part of the Eastern Roman (now called Byzantine) empire which was conquered by Islamic forces. But again the people who got the worst of it were the Christians, as in the 4th crusade. Instead of making war on the Muslims, the Crusaders were transported to Constantinople by the Venetians, who were nominally still under the Byzantine emperor, purportedly to install a pretender to the throne who promised them a great deal of money. When that failed to materialize the barbarians ravaged the city, destroying everything. The Venetians at least had some appreciation for art, and grabbed whatever they could, and took it back to Venice, where it still resides. But the crusaders simply broke or melted down ancient statues and set a fire that destroyed 100,000 homes as well as a library that was the last repository of Greek civilization. The greatest city in the world, which once held a million people was reduced to only 50,000 by the time the Turks finally conquered it two centuries later. The Pope excommunicated these crusaders for their crimes, at least for a time.This was a catastrophe for the west. With the Greek Christians of Byzantium so weakened, they no longer provided a buffer protecting the west from Turkish incursions and Muslim forces poured into Europe, usually massacring or enslaving whoever was in their path. Fear and terror gripped Europe for centuries.

So where is the Christian suppression of Muslims? What history actually shows is centuries of aggression and conquest by… the Muslims. There is no moral equivalency here; none at all. But it is in the past now and no one in the west in walking around holding a grievance about this. But that will probably be news to the conceited ignoramus in the White House.

07 February 2015

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Hollande went to Moscow like supplicants to plead with Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. They appear to have gone wobbly about his actions there, leaving the US in a growing confrontation with Russia in a conflict the European Union largely instigated in the first place. It was the EU, which notably lacks any military force, that initiated this problem by seeking to expand to Ukraine, giving Putin the excuse he needed to respond militarily. This is not the first time European allies have done something like this. When Slovenia broke away from Yugoslavia, Germany, in what was lauded as its first independent foreign policy move, unilaterally recognized them. The rest of Yugoslavia then blew apart in bitter ethnic conflict and it fell to the US to intervene militarily and sort it out. This must not happen again.

The US congress has passed an ill-advised bill to provide Ukraine with military aid, while stiffening sanctions against Russia. Following through with this could have catastrophic, and yet avoidable results. This has not been thought through carefully in terms of consequences that may arise. If we start providing military aid, just how far are we prepared to go? This puts the US in the position of actively supporting military action against the Russians, on their border no less. What are we going to do if this situation escalates? It only plays into Russian paranoia and puts the US in the position of actively seeking to pry Ukraine from the Russian orbit, which was never our intent, notwithstanding suspicions in the Kremlin. Meanwhile our erstwhile allies are abandoning the field and revealing, much to the delight of Vladimir Putin, a split in the alliance. Thus he has managed to outmaneuver the west, at least for the moment.

This situation has to be diffused. While Putin may be pining for the lost provinces of the Soviet Union, it is not clear how far he is prepared to go. Hitler sought to bring all the Germans in other countries to the east under his reich. Does Putin feel that way about all the countries on his borders that have a Russian minority population? That is unlikely but he will do whatever he feels he can get away with as opportunities, such as Ukraine, arise, especially when there is a less than resolute west.

But this whole scenario is wrong. The notion of Russia vs. the West went out with communism, despite what Putin would like to think. For in the long run there is no place for Russia to go but to the west, given a country with a declining population under 150 million, a weak economy, and internal revolts brewing, i.e. in the Caucasus. Russia needs to be brought into Europe, not be cut off from it. This will take patience and foresight, and we need to see all this from a long term perspective. This means that no other former Soviet republic should become part of the EU, and certainly not NATO, unless and until an accommodation is reached first with Russia. At the present time, for Ukraine to be free, we must assuage Russian concerns by making it clear that we have no intention of ever expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. That’s the kind of “reset” we really need.

05 February 2015

In the normal course of events we should usually line up with our government when it comes to international affairs. But the fecklessness of this administration makes that impossible, given a president who, among other things, does not hesitate to badmouth his own country when he is abroad. Can we and the rest of the western world trust him to negotiate effectively on our vital interests when he has shown no capacity to negotiate even with the congress? This comes to mind as the administration moves forward on negotiations with Iran regarding its continuing nuclear development.

A competent leader would make some effort to assuage the concerns of the congress as well as other allies in the region. But in keeping with the demonstrated incapacity to compromise or seriously consider the reasons for objections from other parties we cannot discount reports that they are making reckless concessions in order to get whatever deal they can. Given that Iran has made no secret about not only their desire, but their intention of wiping Israel off the map, Israel is right to be concerned about this. Any agreement must include a renunciation of that position, as well as an ironclad means of making any such threat impossible. In other words it must include an understanding that Israel is on the map.

Benjamin Netanyahu has written perceptively about the ongoing threats not just to Israel but the whole western world. His ideas on these matters ought to be taken seriously. But we have a president who cannot even convince the Republicans, let alone Israel, that he is pursuing the right course. Now it is no secret he loathes Netanyahu and believes Israel is being intransigent, never mind that Iran has been implacably intransigent all along. Even if it were true that Israel was an impediment, the smart thing to do would be to consider why that is the case. A wise leader would make some effort to bring interested parties into the process, and try to get them on board by incorporating their concerns before moving forward. But that isn’t what has happened, and it is a foolish course that is being pursued because it only makes it more likely that the deal will be scuttled by the Republican congress.

Opposition comes not just from Israel but many of the Arab states as well. What could be more telling that not one friend in the region is on board with this? This does not mean that the west should never try to reach an understanding with the Iranians, but it has to be reflective of the concerns of all interested parties. Failing to take these into account in our own position will never produce a satisfactory solution. On this matter Benjamin Netanyahu is far more trustworthy than Barack Obama.

03 February 2015

We are tired of war, and justifiably reticent to become entangled in foreign conflicts. But the actions of ISIS are of a different order altogether. The continuing beheadings and now the horrible burning death of a Jordanian pilot represent an unspeakable evil that the world can no longer tolerate. We must act, and when I say we I mean the entire international community. It is not because they threaten us at the moment. They probably don’t even have the capability for that, yet, but no doubt if they could exact these same punishments on every one of us, they would. We must act because the human race cannot allow such terrible evil to exist and to continue massacring innocent people with impunity.

There are no subtleties here, no shades of nuance, and no considerations that need to be weighed. This is not like a conflict where there may be some reasonable basis for what the enemy is doing, nor is there any room for “empathizing” with them. They are devoid of any decency or compassion. There is no possibility of redemption, and no chance that their brutality will lessen. There is nothing there but pure, unadulterated evil. We must annihilate them, completely. Every last one of them must be wiped out, lest this reign of terror resurface and continue unabated. Unless, and until we act they will continue to use the most odious means of slaughter on unfortunate people who simply happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

They are at war with the better part of the human race, and yet they do not rise above the status of vicious bandits; despicably evil, but still basically bandits. They seize hostages and then execute them by the most vile means. Such savagery cannot be permitted to exist in our world. There is not a state or people anywhere that has any sympathy for them. They lack even the most minute sliver of legitimacy. They must be totally eliminated not because they threaten our interests, but because they offend our fundamental sensibilities as human beings. This has already gone on too long. This despicable cruelty must be stopped. It is nothing less than a moral obligation of the civilized world to respond. If human dignity is to have any meaning in our time the world must do whatever it takes to obliterate them.

25 January 2015

The Greek election results represent a country throwing a national tantrum. In handing power over to the radical left Syirza party, which cannot possibly deliver on anything it has promised, they are sending a message to the European Union and IMF, which have insisted on an austerity program to mitigate the results of continuous government mismanagement and excessive debt. Unfortunately this has thus far resulted in a sharp drop in living standards, 25% unemployment, and extreme hardship over the past several years. But ironically the worst is over and the country finally was heading towards an economic recovery, at least prior to this election.

The EU, and Germany especially, as the strongest economy in the region, required structural reforms to continue lending, including privatizing government assets, cutting pensions, salaries, and personnel, pressuring the Greeks to rationalize their dysfunctional state and its bloated public sector. This has caused great pain, and while actually producing results, at this point the people have had enough. The vote for Syriza is less an ideological shift than an emotional reaction and an expression of frustration. It is also completely irrational. This party is led by an ex-communist named Alex Tsirpas, who apparently left that party because it was not radical enough, and who is totally clueless as to how a government functions.

This party has pledged to undo the austerity regimen and cancel a large part of their debt, while also double the minimum wage, increasing pensions, stopping privatization, while at the same time staying in the eurozone. This is simply impossible. If they move forward with this platform it will likely mean an exit from the euro and economic chaos within the country. The effect on Europe may be significant if it spreads to other European countries, such as Spain and Italy that have similar problems, and may roil markets around the world. However, unless markets panic the effect will not be all that significant insofar as Greece represents only 5% of the European economy.

More troubling is the likelihood that Greece is but a harbinger for many other countries in Europe, given their low birth rate and slow economic growth, which will be unable to sustain the generous benefits that have been promised, or possibly even service the debts they have assumed. There are comparable radical parties elsewhere with similar appeals, that are gaining traction, but promising the sky cannot provide any solution and will likely make things worse, because radicals are incapable of governing. There will be capital flight, higher taxes, no access to financial markets, and a bleak future for those who follow this path.

That radicals can so easily take control of a country and steer it towards disaster proves the wisdom of checks and balances in government, as well as the separation of powers. While Greeks can be proud of a great many achievements, including democracy, functioning self-government is not one of them. From the most ancient times right up to the present, political stability and effective government have been vanishingly rare. As one who has many ancestors from that country, it is at the moment an embarrassment.

Houthi militiamen have taken control of Sana’a, the capitol of Yemen, and the US-supported president of that country has stepped down. The Houthi are Shia Muslims backed by their co-religionists in Iran. The country however, is predominantly Sunni Muslim, which is the prevailing branch of Islam through much of the world, and for historical reasons the two main branches of Islam loathe each other as heretics. Up until now the government of Yemen has been dominated by moderate Sunni Muslims, who have cooperated with the US in battling Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, which is an additional force to be reckoned with. It was they who claimed credit for the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, and who have aggressively plotted attacks against the west.

Meanwhile the king of neighboring Saudi Arabia has died, causing more uncertainty in the region, although his successor is likely to follow the same policies. The traditional Sunni kingdom owes its legitimacy to being the guardian of Islam’s most holy sites at Mecca and Medina. Long a US ally, the country is certain to feel threatened by the expansion of Iranian-Shia influence through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now Yemen, which it shares a border with, as well as its own Shia population. All the ingredients are here for a long, drawn-out battle that the US and its western allies ought to try and stay clear of. We would do well to remember that the main rationale, such as it was, for Al Qaeda’s attacks on the US, was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, which in their view meant infidels at the gates of the holy places. This occurred primarily in order to protect the Saudis and the oil-rich gulf states from Sadaam Hussein, whose threat, following his defeat in the Gulf War, was not all that clear. US forces subsequently left Saudi Arabia, but the struggle with Al Qaeda continues.

Our meddling in this region has proven to be disastrous and short-sighted. However, there may be some opportunity to gradually extricate ourselves as this situation unfolds. While both Sunni and Shia extremists hate us, they hate each other even more. If this conflict expands, it is increasingly possible that Al Qaeda and other such groups will shift their attention away from the west, and towards the more immediate conflict. This does not mean abandoning the region, but moving towards less active participation, especially with our own troops. The west may even quietly support or supply one side, and we cannot allow the world’s oil supply to be jammed up in the Straits of Hormuz, but we need to avoid becoming a primary antagonist here.

But all of this changes if the Iranians succeed in obtaining a nuclear weapon, insofar as it would enable it to dominate the region as never before. The Israelis, as well as most Arab leaders, are rightly skeptical about the ongoing negotiations with Iran, and any deal that does not largely assuage their concerns should be resisted. Thanks to our ineptitude we have managed to clear the field for Iran by disposing of enemies on its borders, namely Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now Iran’s influence reaches as far as Yemen, and we must not forget that it is the one state that is actually controlled by radical Islamists. At this point by comparison the horrendously brutal “Islamic State” we are bombing in Syria and Iraq has more in common with bandits taking hostages. No doubt alarm bells are ringing in Saudi Arabia, and it is good that President Obama is stopping there at this time. Let us hope that the right decisions are made in this tricky situation, in which there are no easy solutions.